Santhiya v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Santhiya ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, R-1 Mambalam Town Police Station, Chennai - 17.

Crime No.242 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.242 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For petitioner :

Mr.Anandraj For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c), 22(b) and 29(1) of the 1/4

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in Crime No.242 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused, was involving in selling 2.33 grams of Methamphetamine. A3 was arrested, and based on his statement, the role of the petitioner was revealed.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is ranked only as A2 and has been falsely implicated in this case, and that she is not involved in any offence. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that A1 and A2 are the suppliers. A2 received money through Gpay from A3 for the purpose of supplying the contraband, and the contraband has been seized. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 2/4

6. Considering the manner in which the occurrence took place and the fact that the petitioner is alleged to have been involved in selling 2.33 grams of Methamphetamine, this Court is of the considered view that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner may result in petitioner involve in similar offences hence, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 23.10.2025 cda To 1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, R-1 Mambalam Town Police Station, Chennai - 17.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

cda 3/4

23.10.2025 4/4